Unit strength

[Akka]

Sigh...
Always the same band of fanboys rationalizing ad nauseam and using same old examples to try to explain the strange results of fights in the game.

Hey, people, you know what ? Coren told explicitely in on of the IRC chat at Apolyton that the A/D ratings were GEARED toward making older units have a better chance to win against newer, for the purpose of game balance.

I'm sick of twisted explanations, god. I just hope for your countries that you never become a general or a weapon designer, or at least I hope you get a grasp on reality before.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by Akka
Sigh...
Always the same band of fanboys rationalizing ad nauseam and using same old examples to try to explain the strange results of fights in the game.

Hey, people, you know what ? Coren told explicitely in on of the IRC chat at Apolyton that the A/D ratings were GEARED toward making older units have a better chance to win against newer, for the purpose of game balance.

Guess what I already knew that. And our rationalizations are why we don't have a problem with this play balancing issue. And it is what I would have done if I was in their shoes as well. I just look at these units abstractly, numbers only (as I came from SMAC where the names have no meanings).

It is too bad that some people get so caught up on the labels and instead of focusing on the numbers.

 

[Zachriel]

It is quite rare when any army can walk away from battle unscathed. Therefore war is hard and good guys die, even when fighting "primitives."

 

[God]

Don't know if this has been mentioned before..

Lets say you have your musketeers fighting in the forest against enemy bowmen and warriors. You both clash, musketeers blow away some of the charging warriors.
Time to reload those guns. Takes a few secs, meanwhile bowmen are picking you off and sticking another arrow ready in a sec or two. Warriors are throwing their axes and then pulling out daggers and stabbing.

its possible for advanced units to lose.